Water Quality and Contamination essay

WaterQuality and Contamination

CarolynMalone

SCI207: Dependence of Man on the Environment

MarcHnytka

May2, 2016

WaterQuality and Contamination

Abstract

Themain purpose of the experiment was to investigate water quality andcontamination of different water samples. The experiment was carriedin three stages, that is, experiment 1, 2, and 3. Different types ofcontaminations were used during the experiment. Examples of thecontaminations that were used include oil, vinegar, laundry soap, andwet soil. The different samples that were used include tap water,Dasani ® bottled water, and Fiji ® bottled water. The study wasvery important in that it was emphasizing more on the advancement ofresearch regarding water treatment. Perhaps, the techniques that areapplied in water treatment requires intensive research. Since highquality and drinkable water is suitable for the sustainability of thehuman race. Learning about the main causes of water contaminationgives researchers the opportunity of coming up with methods ofconverting unclean water to water of high quality. According to theoutcome of the experiment, it was clear that Fiji ® bottled water ismore contaminated than Dasani ® bottled water and tap water.

Wateris one of the most important element of the earth. Without water lifewill cease to exist. In that case, the quality of water is imperativeto the human race together with other species of the earth. Perhaps,quality water is the type of water that is drinkable. Research onquality water has been a continuous process that ensures that cleanwater is available throughout the society. However, 97% of water ismade of salty water while the remaining 3% is made of fresh water(Turk,2014). The 3% percent has proven to be precious in that people cannotsurvive in the society without clean and fresh drinkable water. Theavailability of high quality and drinkable water enable human beingsto live their normal life without experiencing any sicknesses such asmalaria, cholera, and Dysentery (Miller, 1992). Moreover,contamination of water can cause disease that can attack children.The result of the disease attack to children is death. In that case,there is a need for proper treatment of water to avoid contamination.The research on different methods of treating water has drasticallyreduced the amount of clean water in the society. There has also beenresearching advancement to increase the amount of clean water that issustainable to the human race (Entry, 2002).

Themain objective of the experiment was to explore the main causes ofthe contamination of water. The experiment was to investigate if thecontaminants are present in both the tap water and bottled water.Learning about the main causes the contamination of water gives usthe opportunity of converting unclean water to clean and safe water.Therefore, promoting a healthy supply of water.

Materialsand Methods

Experiment1: The hypothesis of the experiment were divided into threecategories that are oil hypothesis, vinegar hypothesis, and laundrysoap hypothesis. For the oil hypothesis, it was thought that the oilwill remain on top of the water surface with little contamination. Inthe case of the vinegar hypothesis, it was thought the vinegar willdisperse completely through the water. And finally for the laundrysoap hypothesis, it was thought the laundry soap will have the samereaction as the vinegar in water. It implies that it should mixright.

Experiment2: The coagulants and the alkalinity removed almost all of thegroundwater contaminants.

Experiment3: It was assumed that tap water was the most filled with contaminantmore than bottled water even though it appeared to be two timescleaner.

Inthe first experiment, we used three ordinary households’ items asthe main source of the contaminant. These items include laundry soap,vinegar, and vegetable oil. The total number of beakers that wereused in the experiment was eight. The first four beakers were a labelwith permanent makers on the appropriate contaminant. 100ml of waterwas measured into those first four beakers. In the next step, 10ml ofthe oil was added to beaker number 2, 10ml of vinegar was added tobeaker number 3, and finally 10ml of laundry soap was added to beakernumber 4. Each of the mixture in the four beakers was stirred with awooden stick so as to observe the physical changes that might occurin the water. Moreover, an equal amount of soil that is of 60ml wasadded on top of the cheesecloth in beakers number 5 up to 8. Each andevery contaminant was added to the beakers to observe the changes ofthe water is it being passed through the soil.

Inexperiment 2, 100ml of soil was added to a 250ml size beaker, and itwas filled up to the 200ml marker line. Another 250ml beaker wastaken, and the test on the wet soil was carried on it for fifteentimes. 10ml of the contaminated water from the wet beaker wastransferred into another beaker of 100ml. 10g of alum was addedtogether with wet soil into the 250ml and stirred for a couple ofminutes and was then allowed to rest for 15 minutes. A funnel to beused was line carefully with cheesecloth. By using 100ml beaker, 40mlof sand, 20ml of activated charcoal, and 40ml of gravel werecarefully layered into the funnel. Tap water was then poured over thefilter paper four times and then discarded four times. Most of thecontaminated water was poured into the funnel and then allowed tofilter for five minutes. A few drops of bleach were added into thewater that was already filtered and stirred for one minute. Finally,a comparison between the contaminated water and the final water wascarried out.

Thefinal experiment involved the testing of tap water and bottled water.The water was being tested for quality use. The chemicals that werebeing used during the experimental test include Iron, phosphate,chloride, ammonia, and 4 in 1 (chlorine, alkalinity, pH, andhardness). During the experiment, three beakers were used, and eachbeaker contains water for every single test. The water that was beingtested was tested with each strip and compared with the chart thatshows the strength of each chemical. However, when it came to thestep of testing for Iron, 70ml of water was removed from each beaker,and the amount of the water was replaced with a packet of reducingpowder and then shaken with the paraffin on top to ensure completemixture. Iron was also tested and the results compared with the chartprovided.

Results

Inthe case of the clear water, there was no odor. Balls of the oil wentinto the water and settled up. The oil did not mix with the watereven after stirring. Furthermore, there was no noticeable change inthe water regarding the color or odor of the water. The soap did miximmediately with water and produced a strong odor with no change inthe color of the water. At some point, it appeared as if the soap hadchanged the color of the water into green. During the filtering ofthe water that was mixed with soil, the water appeared as if it wassome of the spit of already chewed tobacco. A lot of debris didsettle at the bottom of the beaker that was being used. The result ofthe one that was mixed with oil was similar to the one that was withthe plain water. They have the same nasty color. The experiment thatinvolved the use of vinegar did not have the dark color and not muchof the debris settled at the bottom. The soap appears to have givenone of the darkest colors with many debris settling at the bottom.

Table1: Ammonia tests results

Table2: Chloride test results

Table3: 4 in 1 test results

Table4: Phosphate test results

Table5: Iron test results

Discussion

Fromthe table and results, it is clear that the data collected was fromdifferent water sources and several contaminants were tested togetherwith the tap water. The results show the amount of contaminant thatis present in the water that is being consumed by human beings.Furthermore, more than two hypothesis were accepted depending on theobservation that was made. There was also a thicker consistency ofresult with the laundry soap. The second experiment did confirm thehypothesis that metal has a positive effect on producing clean water.The experiment also shows that the Dasani bottled water was cleanerthan the Fiji bottled water. However, some factors might haveaffected the outcome of the experiment. Such factors include atemperature of the water, that is, whether the temperature was coldor hot or wet or room temperature (Prüss-Ustün,2011). Some areas where the sample water was collected might havehard water while others might have soft water. In that case, therewas a need for carry out multiple tests on the water so as to haveaccurate results.

Fromthe table of the phosphate result, it was observed that the Fiji ®Bottled water had the highest level of phosphate then followed byDasani ® Bottled water. Tap water did have zero quantity ofphosphate content. It implies that the contamination content of theFiji ® bottled water was high as compared to that of Dasani ®bottled water. According to the 4 in 1 test results, the pH value oftap water was 6 and that of Dasani ® bottled water was 3 while thatof the Fiji ® bottled water was 8. It implies that the alkalinitycontent of the Fiji ® bottled water was higher than that of tapwater and Dasani ® bottled water. However, the acidity of the Dasani® bottled water was higher than the acidity of the tap water and theFiji ® bottled water.

Conclusion

Inconclusion, the threat of contamination to water only increases withan increase in the population growth of the society. Therefore,conducting a suitable experiment on the quality of water will enablethe government and scientist to teach the society about theimportance of keeping water free from contamination. Through theexperiment, scientists can adopt new techniques of filtering waterfrom contamination. Perhaps, the new techniques will help inimproving the human health as well as the health of the environment.

References

Entry,J. A., Sojka, R. E., Watwood, M., &amp Ross, C. (2002).Polyacrylamide preparations for protection of water qualitythreatened by agricultural runoff contaminants. Environmental Pollution, 120(2), 191-200.

Miller,E. W., &amp Miller, R. M. (1992). Water quality and availability: Areference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.

Prüss-Ustün,A., Vickers, C., Haefliger, P., &amp Bertollini, R. (2011). Knownsand unknowns on burden of disease due to chemicals: a systematicreview.Environ Health, 10(9), 10-1186.

Turk,J., &amp Bensel, T. (2014). Contemporary environmental issues (2ndEd.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.